Late date of Preterism, an argument against it?

[beforHim]

That is, to my very limited knowledge on preterism, It wasn't an eschat option in the early Church. That is, of all the info we have on the early church, no one believed in a preteristic way, right? Or am I wrong? And if I'm right, if preterism as an eschat option is late, then is it an argument against preterism?

I was searching for info on preterism and google sent me a link here, and i replied to the thread. Only later did I think to look at the date of the thread- 2009! Yeah, I laugh at myself now (also has this been a thread topic recently? Forgive me if I'm beating a dead horse )

[maudman]

That is, to my very limited knowledge on preterism, It wasn't an eschat option in the early Church. That is, of all the info we have on the early church, no one believed in a preteristic way, right? Or am I wrong? And if I'm right, if preterism as an eschat option is late, then is it an argument against preterism?

I was searching for info on preterism and google sent me a link here, and i replied to the thread. Only later did I think to look at the date of the thread- 2009! Yeah, I laugh at myself now (also has this been a thread topic recently? Forgive me if I'm beating a dead horse )

Hello beforehim...

You rarely find any modern theological concepted eschaological or other in such wordy forms..

That is something our modern intellect has done.. The gospel was recieved and preach for the poor and simple... It doesn't mean it doesn't exist in a simple form as does the futurist ideas....

There is one way to look at all this and it is that Preterism is a history with prophetic reality that fulfill itself... And the future of preterism is history repeating itself.. There lies the rub for both Preterist and the futurist who can't figure their situation..

Because so many futurist reject preterism they miss the keys to their beliefs.. And the greatest evil is those who seeks too make the old new again.. In other words, when those who have laboered to restore those to power who deny The sovernty and Power of Jesus Christ undermine their calling and are the greatest evil.. They in the end empower the enemies of Christ threw a flawed interpretation of scripture that lead them to stumble and fall in the hour of their prophecy..

Peace and God bless

[seanD]

You're right. It was clearly a late progression. We can clearly see where the apostolic church expected the imminent return of Christ and we still see it reflected in the earliest church fathers. Then we see the switch around the 4th century, until futurism made a come-back much later on. So it looks very clearly that preterism was a result of the church becoming fearful that the return of Christ wasn't happening, so they needed to modify the earliest beliefs to resolve that issue.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Yet my case is exegetical and nothing to do with any fear of a failed return. You are simply slandering people who aren't alive to defend themselves. Further is the fact that there are preteristic elements very early on, and we only have a fragment of what was written, and much of what we do have isn't even yet translated into English. One thing that is ABSOLUTELY absent is any "rapture" idea. Forgot fourth century, that is a modern development.

Of course none of that makes any of the ideas wrong. What saith the Scripture.

[maudman]

I think in most cases and not all... Many are trying see it more enlightening to take the midddle ground...

The problem with many looking is they do it with presupposition and erroneous outcomes.. To many read into things their current beliefs thinking early fathers were pointing to their proof text... But really the Apostles had to convince early converts or allow them to believe that Christ return was Immenate.. One must understand that this was preached to Jews who's salvation was immentate on the acceptance because it is the first generation and the transition from the old to the new covenant.. There isn't two covenants but one... There is a preterism in scripture as there is also a futurists but there are extremes in that some strain to make the truth because of things that have nothing to do with the truth...

Plainly put, there are some things that are plainly understood by the early church fathers and this can be seen historically and easy determined or extracted. But because so many have warped or twisted theological views it scews the ability to accept the truth... All had been fullfiled for Israel to transition to the things they had hoped for.. But not all had been fulfilled that was written because there were things pertaining to the end itself that had never happened.. Israel was a prototype that is how you can begin your understanding of preterism.. And the preterism repeats itself historically with the Christian or saint becoming the reallity of the eternal love God demonstrates towards his children.. And in the end the church and/or saints become what Christ was in the first coming.. The world even those who claim to be Christian will hate the Church as did Israel towards christ.. CHrist first coming is the prophecy of his second and his church will be persecuted by the Jews and those christians who have been decieved.. When so many with so much evil about the church you will know where you stand in the hour of Glory...

There is another thing one must understand... There are certain sins that Christ doesn't look upon and are forgiven and there is certain sin that is satanic... If you don't know the difference your shepards may be blind....


peace and God bless

[seanD]

Yet my case is exegetical and nothing to do with any fear of a failed return. You are simply slandering people who aren't alive to defend themselves. Further is the fact that there are preteristic elements very early on, and we only have a fragment of what was written, and much of what we do have isn't even yet translated into English. One thing that is ABSOLUTELY absent is any "rapture" idea. Forgot fourth century, that is a modern development.

Of course none of that makes any of the ideas wrong. What saith the Scripture.

Pre-trib rapture doesn't have to be conditional of futurism, which is why the rapture timeline has varied among futurists.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I didn't say "pretrib rapture"

[seanD]

I think at some point we can assume the church will "raptured," as per John 14:2 and 1 Thess 4:17. Nonetheless, it still doesn't have to be condition of futurism.

[maudman]

I think at some point we can assume the church will "raptured," as per John 14:2 and 1 Thess 4:17. Nonetheless, it still doesn't have to be condition of futurism.

Hello SeanD,

I my mind the second coming is what some have called the Rapture with distorted presupposition.. They are actually the same event..


Dispy's who feel that God needs to demonstrate somes ultimate evil in some's ultimate rejection of willingness to repent because such a miraculas event has happened I think influences certain aspects of rapture.. That Somehow God does this to fit this Idea of Gods final plea.. This comes from not recognizing that God has determned things through Christ not us.. It begins with Flawed theology in other areas of doctrine seeminly unrelated? In such cases you have to throw out the baby with the bath water.. This Idea that there will be this Jewish state of existance as God's final stand against an AC is what has many decieved in certain types of religious groups.. Individuals with corrupted influences..(Not that there aren't things that are happening? There is to the end) One might asked how this Happened? Or crept in on so many Prophecing individuals is tied to other things.. When Christ talks about the Fig tree its a warning.. You will know the times.. But how it happens when it not commanded is why its prophesied? Just how much of Prophey reflects what God demands and desires of his Children

It largley happens because people have chosen to refuse or reject any need or acknowledgement of the Churches past views as historicaly and prophetically significant.. As if only intellectualizing the convert was the only real way to properly understand the Bible.. And justified so many in ignoring the historical church.. They are consumed by their own abilities to determine the truth ignoring that God has been with the Church all along no matter what has happened in history.. Often many are consumed in their own righteousness... The wise and the Prudent aren't just terms for the Imperical minded...


Prophecy is sumed up with one parable as how it all is "to" and in the End.. And one Prophetic image in Daniel Charactorizes much...

If we say we believe God? Then we become labors if we labor as instructed or called..

Peace and God bless

[KingsGambit]

There is another thing one must understand... There are certain sins that Christ doesn't look upon and are forgiven and there is certain sin that is satanic... If you don't know the difference your shepards may be blind....

I'm sorry, but what do you mean? All sin is satanic. Are you referring to 1 John 5:16-17?

[zwan]

Yet my case is exegetical and nothing to do with any fear of a failed return. You are simply slandering people who aren't alive to defend themselves. Further is the fact that there are preteristic elements very early on, and we only have a fragment of what was written, and much of what we do have isn't even yet translated into English. One thing that is ABSOLUTELY absent is any "rapture" idea. Forgot fourth century, that is a modern development.

Of course none of that makes any of the ideas wrong. What saith the Scripture.

The hyper-preterist could take a similar line. Yes, there are "preteristic elements very early on" in a kind of way. But it's still the case that hyper-preterism was--as far as we can tell--only known from around the 19th century. To appeal to "early elements" is dubious. I don't see why it's any better for the partial preterists to be doing it. (Unless they can find material which properly supports their position.)

And of course, we know that the hyper-preterist will tell you: "what really matters is the scriptures", "It doesn't matter what the church fathers believed". They will tell you that their case is "exegetical" and "scriptural" and they could probably make a fuss saying that their opponents "have to rely on the traditions of fallible men".

Or the hyper-preterist could say, "we only have a fragment of what was written". Maybe there were writings back then that did support hyper-preterism?

Forgot fourth century, that is a modern development.

Of course none of that makes any of the ideas wrong. What saith the Scripture.

So if hyper-preterism is a "modern development" (which of course it is) that doesn't make it wrong. You just want to ask, "What saith the Scripture"?

[maudman]

I'm sorry, but what do you mean? All sin is satanic. Are you referring to 1 John 5:16-17?

Hello KingGambit,

No need to be sorry....

I can understand how some in their theology look at things and its easy to see why some would think that.. But actually that isn't correct.. Not all sin is satanic..

To say all sin is destructive in some way is probably more accurate... But not all sin is satanic because satan was one who played a roll in certain situations as some were also used by satan to twist things for his/her purpose.. I recall in scripture the young man who marries his mother? (Probably step mother) As paul states It would be better for him to be delivered unto satan for the destruction of his flesh to preserve his spirit...

Corinthians

[1] It is absolutely heard, that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as the like is not among the heathens; that one should have his father's wife. [2] And you are puffed up; and have not rather mourned, that he might be taken away from among you, that hath done this deed. [3] I indeed, absent in body, but present in spirit, have already judged, as though I were present, him that hath so done, [4] In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, you being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus; [5] To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Why would the Apostles desire he be delivered unto satan for the destruction? Is Satan now a Good Guy? Why do we in our Baptism say we will stand against the devil and his way's...

Consider these scripture..

16 Acts Of Apostles 26:18
To open their eyes, that they may be converted from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and a lot among the saints, by the faith that is in me.

With CHrist it is the forgivness of sin... People didn't quit sinning because they believed in Jesus Christ... Notice Paul's statements in Corinthians that not even the Heathens had such a fornication.... Satan is a Spirit and can move one to sin in a particular way no doubt.. And that type a Sin carries a certain penalty and a heavy judgment... Satan is also a Spirit that can Punish sin of a certain kind.... When is sin satanic? It wasn't satan that motivated the sin of that particular fornication...

Peace and Godbless

[beforHim]

Well thx for all the answers. :)

I'm definitely no hyper-preterist, just fyi ;)

[eschaton]

Yet my case is exegetical and nothing to do with any fear of a failed return. You are simply slandering people who aren't alive to defend themselves. Further is the fact that there are preteristic elements very early on, and we only have a fragment of what was written, and much of what we do have isn't even yet translated into English. One thing that is ABSOLUTELY absent is any "rapture" idea. Forgot fourth century, that is a modern development.

Of course none of that makes any of the ideas wrong. What saith the Scripture.

There are abundant Christian writings from the first few centuries. It's just that not many people take time to study them.

[Dee Dee Warren]

What we have is a fragment of what was actually written. And it is a bare fact that much of what we do have isn't translated into English yet.

I prefer to take most of time to study the Scriptures. I find your hyperdulia of the ECF disturbing, but whatever rocks your boat.